Talk:Zen

This version

-- It could be any version-- is so good!

I just laughed and laughed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rednblu (talk • contribs) 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Zen in Popular Culture

There is no section about Zen in popular culture. A section is needed for clarity and as a quick reference to the misconceptions arising from superficial and consmetic adoption of zen based practices as an affectation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.11.82 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Count noun

Interesting, but indeed, a mass noun. See also here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Taoist "influence"

There were very large passages in the "origins" sub-section (under History) which seemed to indicate that proto-Chan was directly influenced by Daoism. While Daoism may have influenced (in quite an indirect manner in most cases) much later Chan and Zen ideas, there is no evidence that early or Proto-Chan was directly influenced by it. The influence of Daoism on Chinese Buddhism was quite limited to a few figures involved in the so called "concept matching" translation efforts. None of this impacted Chan much as far as I have read.

Looking at the leading scholarship on the topic of the origin of Chan (McRae's publications and Greene's "Chan before Chan") will lead one to the conclusion that early and proto Chan were strictly Mahayana meditation movements, and Taoism did not play into it. Indeed, all of the citations and content that I have removed from the "origin" section are all speaking about the influence of Daoism on specific figures like Sengzhao or speaking in a very general sense about Daoist influences. Furthermore, a cursory reading of the earliest sources, like Bodhidharma's Two Entrances and the 'Masters of the Lankavatara' literature etc shows that they are just Mahayana works, nothing about the Dao (the character is used, but it means Dharma, not the Daoist Dao, and the context makes this clear), Qi, Pu or other Daoist terms comes up.

Because of this, it would be wrong to have this massive block of text there which I removed that somehow insinuates Chan came from Daoism. Instead, I replaced it with content discussing the earlier dhyana masters and dhyana sutras, which did have an influence on Chan.

I have tracked the passage from Dumoulin which is cited here as evidence, but he doesn't even provide actual proof that early Chan was influenced by Daoism, he just makes a passing comment (in page 168 of his History). To make matters worse, he is citing the Gateless Gate when he makes his comment, a text from the 13th century!!! I looked at the various passages from Dumoulin and honestly he does not provide much solid evidence for thinking that Taoism influenced Chan, its mainly just statements to the fact without citing actual primary sources (when he does cite some, they are from much later as I said above). Either way, I added a short passage indicating that some scholars do think that Chan was influenced by Taoism and citing Dumoulin specifically.

☸Javierfv1212☸ 21:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Dhyāna

"The practice of dhyana or meditation, especially sitting meditation (坐禪，Chinese: zuòchán, Japanese: zazen / ざぜん) is a central part of Zen Buddhism." is verifiably false.

From The Letters of Zen Master Dahui Pujue, pages 19 and 20, ISBN 978–0–19–066416–9:

When it is time to deal with things, just deal with them. When you feel the need to do stillness-sitting, just do stillness-sitting. When sitting, you must not grasp at sitting as an ultimate. At the present time, of the party of perverse teachers, most take “silence-asillumination” stillness-sitting as an ultimate dharma, misleading younger students. I don’t fear making enemies of them. I vigorously scold them in order to repay the kindness of the buddhas, and to rescue beings from the con-men of this end-time of the dharma.

Here are a few brief passages from Dahui texts that explicitly link “engirding mind” and “silence-as-illumination” with excessive sitting:

Preceptor Yantou said: When previously I was on pilgrimage I probed Chan with the honored monks of one or two places. All they did was have students day-and-night “engird mind,” sit until they produced callouses on the rump and until the water in their mouths was drained dry; first they would face Dīpaṃkara Buddha, and, from the black-lacquer darkness in their bellies, they would say: “I keep my Chan sitting safe!”33

The old barbarian Bodhidharma for nine years suffered defeat [i.e., his nine years of sitting facing a wall were a defeat]—what a pity that he was mistaken all that time! The result has been that the followers of “silence-as-illumination” do sitting for years on end.34

They fervently close the eyes and assume the appearance of death. They call it “stillness-sitting,” “mind-contemplation,” and “silenceas-illumination.” In turn they take this perverse view and use it to lead ignorant mediocrities, saying: “If you can attain stillness [in sitting] for one day, that’s one day’s gongfu.”35

There are a lot of texts and quotes that explicitly reject meditation, dhyana and sitting as a means to and end or even as worth anything. While I realize most current traditions mostly don't hold that view, it is what was originally written in the texts (texts of the people who started the tradition of zen) and they made a big deal out of it too. If the quotes above don't satisfy you, I invite you to read the texts yourself, because you clearly haven't. I can also provide more quotes if you are interested, but seeing as there is misinformation on the page, you don't seem to be.

I've read them, and I've also read the scholarly discussion, which you obviously haven't. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I have and zen masters reject scholars for a reason, which you would know have you read the texts. This discussion is as old as zen itself and you're on the wrong side of it.

I've been practicing Zen for thirty years, so I know what I'm talking about. Wikipedia does not allow WP:OR, that is, your own personla interpretations of primary texts. The idea that Zen rejects meditation is a well-known fallacy, rejected by scholars. You're referring to Dahui Zonggao, not exactly one of "the people who started the tradition of zen," but an iinovator who had to 's ell' Zen to a lay-audience. Dahui does not reject dhyana, but argues for the primacy of insight, to be attained by koan-practice. See John McRae, Seeing Through Zen, and the publications of Robert M. Sharf, for a deconstruction of this idea that the Zen-tradition rejects the practice of meditation. And if you think that scholars by defaukt are wrong and don't understand Zen, then you're at the wronf place; Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not religious fundamentalism.

The quote you refer to does not reject meditation, it just warns not to take meditation as an end in itself (p.19):

When you feel the need to do stillness-sitting, just do stillness-sitting. When sitting, you must not grasp at sitting as an ultimate.

You took the quotes from the introduction; that's what you should be referring to, not those quotes and your own understanding of them. That same introduction also informs us that Dahui did not reject sitting; he did it himself (p.26-27). And if you want an example of rigorous Zen-practice, influenced by Dahui, see Hakuin. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you clearly have no idea what you're saying. Have fun with your "scholars". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:244D:6E3B:7AC3:DDDB (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You should try to read a little bit more:

While the attribution of gradualism, attributed by Shenhui to a concurring faction, was a rhetoric device, it led to a conceptual dominance in the Chan-tradition of subitism, in which any charge of gradualism was to be avoided.[133][note 5] This "rhetorical purity" was hard to reconcile conceptually with the actual practice of meditation,[140][133] and left little place in Zen texts for the description of actual meditation practices, apparently rejecting any form of practice.[141][133][132][note 6] Instead, those texts directly pointed to and expressed this awakened nature, giving way to the paradoxically nature of encounter dialogue and koans.[133][132]

Anyway, enjoy your fox-slobber. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Doubling down on ignorance is not a pretty hill to die on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:C0A3:283A:4B33:78EE (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

So you're just going to stop responding again, as you did on the bodhidharma page, like some butthurt child?

Look I get it, you were interested in zen as a a kid, some dipshit with "master" in his title told you some things he thought were true and you couldn't resist. I mean, it gave you a good feeling, so how can it be wrong, right? And if more than a single person is saying it and even people who are deemed intelligent scholars join that side, how can it be wrong? But your ignorance is evident in the fact that you can't reconcile gradualism vs subitism and quote a scholar who's just as uninformed as you are. You haven't been practicing anything these past 30 years but excessive arrogance and putting your heels in the sand, strengthening your inbility to face yourself and robbing yourself of the ability to admit your mistakes.

You're obviously way out of your depth here. Your claim of zen practice not only falls short in what I mentioned above, but can be clearly seen on your personal page too, where you have a bunch of quotes hanging around that get thouroughly rejected in the zen canon. You also have a line saying: "Yet, Zen, Dzogchen and Shentong also point to groundless awareness, in which this amazing reality appears" which sounds to me like you have experienced it for yourself, or you wouldn't make such a bold claim... (unless you're just parroting after what other people are saying? (It's not really a question...)) or have you been going on blind faith for the last 30 years without having any progress or movement at all? In which case the question is, why even try to talk about what zen is and is not?

It seems that what you were accusing me of, me trying to pass of my own view as zen, is exactly is what you yourself are doing here. You are forfeiting half the canon just so you can use the other half of it and reinforce the views you hold that make you feel better and allow you to be an arrogant prick who can smack people over the head with books he doesn't understand. Classic case of religious fanaticism.

To prove further how out of depth you are: "earlier in the conversation you argue You're referring to Dahui Zonggao, not exactly one of "the people who started the tradition of zen," but an iinovator who had to 's ell' Zen to a lay-audience. Dahui does not reject dhyana, but argues for the primacy of insight, to be attained by koan-practice."

Just because dahui is the quote, doesn't mean the practice hasn't been thouroughly rejected by the patriarchs who set up the tradition, you should try to read a little bit more. You don't have any argument here and anyone with even a tiny bit of insight would have seen that.

"I've been practicing Zen for thirty years, so I know what I'm talking about."

What have you been doing exactly? And if you know what you're talking about, what does the gradual vs suddend debate mean? Does that mean that for the past 30 years you have been gradually moving towards attainment or does the "I know what I'm talking about" mean you suddenly got an insight x years in? It's also not a good argument on the fact that it would count as OR, your personal experiences have nothing to do with the article, that's a huge bias and you shouldn't bring it up in a conversation that's supposed to be objective. You clearly have personal stakes here.

"And if you want an example of rigorous Zen-practice, influenced by Dahui, see Hakuin"

I know of hakuin, he doesn't know what he's talking about. His koan answer book is a joke. Imagine thinking zen is (even remotely related to) memorizing sayings. Clearly he and anyone who advocates for him hasn't actually delved into the zen canon very much.

"See John McRae, Seeing Through Zen, and the publications of Robert M. Sharf, for a deconstruction of this idea that the Zen-tradition rejects the practice of meditation. And if you think that scholars by defaukt are wrong and don't understand Zen, then you're at the wronf place;"

Here is another example of you failing to see any nuance in what is being said to you. Foyan was technically a scholar, but if you knew anything about zen, you'd also understand that words get used as expedients and that the meaning is not only dependant on context, but that sometimes you shouldn't take words so literal and understand what was meant with them, rather than taking them at face value. Then again, you haven't actually been practicing zen, so who can blame you. Obviously I'm referring to people here who are pure scholars, who can't assess zen on their own because they are making conceptual structures out of the knowledge of other people. These intellectual interpretations can obviously never scratch the surface of what zen masters were trying to say and you'll get those huge debates from people who aren't able to reconcile gradual and sudden, like your friends above... You can't navigate rushing waters with your eyes closed, and choosing someone like that to be your captain is something only an idiot does.

(Removed a bit because I made a claim of a quote, but I don't think I own the book it was in anymore, so I won't be able to provide the actual line.) (Sorry the stuff below got a bit messy because of all the editing, but it should be clear nontheless... feel free to edit it so that it makes sense if you want, I've already put in way too much effort for such an ungrateful child as yourself.)

Here's another quote though, which basically says the same thing, but doesn't use the word scholar.

"Regarding this Zen Doctrine of ours, since it was first transmitted, it has never taught that men should seek for learning or form concepts. 'Studying the Way' is just a figure of speech. It is a method of arousing people's interest in the early stages of their development. In fact, the Way is not something which can be studied. Study leads to the retention of concepts and so the Way is entirely misunderstood. Moreover, the Way is not something specially existing; it is called the Mahayana Mind - Mind which is not to be found inside, outside or in the middle. Truly it is not located anywhere. The first step is to refrain from knowledge-based concepts. This implies that if you were to follow the empirical method to the utmost limit, on reaching that limit you would still be unable to locate Mind. The way is spiritual Truth and was originally without name or title. It was only because people ignorantly sought for it empirically that the Buddhas appeared and taught them to eradicate this method of approach. Fearing that nobody would understand, they selected the name 'Way'. You must not allow this name to lead you into forming a mental concept of a road. So it is said 'When the fish is caught we pay no more attention to the trap.' When body and mind achieve spontaneity, the Way is reached and Mind is understood. A sramana [Commonly, the word for 'monk'.] is so called because he has penetrated to the original source of all things. The fruit of attaining the sramana stage is gained by putting an end to all anxiety; it does not come from book-learning."

So, uhh, I think what I said was fine in a way, so I'll put it back...

Scholars is the exact word zen masters used btw... So that's another argument in favor of your ignorance and that you haven't actually read what zen masters were saying. Don't tell someone to read more when you don't even know that. Again, you are way out of your depth here.

You're in luck, I found it in a book online. It's not even an obscure text, comes from the platform sutra, page 367, Chapter VIII. Sudden and Gradual (heh), ISBN 0-88139-316-9

Everyone shut their mouths; no one said a word. Some of them didn’t speak because they knew and some didn’t speak because they did not know. Seeing that no one was going to answer, Shen Hui jumped out from the assembly and said, “I now what it is! It’s the origin of all Buddhas: my Buddha nature!” “In the ranks of the Ch’an School,” said the Master, “you’re nothing but a scholar. You have no genuine understanding.”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:90CB:BEAF:12E3:7772 (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC Dhyana section

Content is not being given it's due weight and I suspect editorial bias, which isn't soothed by the editor's unwillingness to cooperate.

Tried DRN but I don't see it going anywhere and would like some neutral input instead of input from people who are invested in the topic in some way.

Sorry if I'm doing this too early, but I don't want to spend weeks or even days just to get a simple edit in and don't see DRN or the discussion with joshua jonathan going anywhere atm.

Be sure to read everything carefully, it's not an easy topic.

I'm 2A02:A210:BA9:9080:90CB:BEAF:12E3:7772 in the discussion above, seems like my ip changed today.

2A02:A210:BA9:9080:B953:3521:CEB7:BBD8 (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll put a tldr of the discussion here...

This part the issue:

Dhyāna

See also: Dhyāna in Buddhism

The practice of dhyana or meditation, especially sitting meditation (坐禪，Chinese: zuòchán, Japanese: zazen / ざぜん) is a central part of Zen Buddhism.[16]

because dhyana or meditation, especially sitting, is not a central part of zen buddhism, even the article itself contradicts that it is.

Pointing to the nature of the mind

According to Charles Luk, in the earliest traditions of Chán, there was no fixed method or formula for teaching meditation, and all instructions were simply heuristic methods, to point to the true nature of the mind, also known as Buddha-nature.[25] According to Luk, this method is referred to as the "Mind Dharma", and exemplified in the story (in the Flower Sermon) of Śākyamuni Buddha holding up a flower silently, and Mahākāśyapa smiling as he understood.[25] A traditional formula of this is, "Chán points directly to the human mind, to enable people to see their true nature and become buddhas."[26]

So, seeing as only one side of the discussion is being given due weight there, an alteration does not seem misplaced. Feel free to read the full discussion of course, but it's a bit full of trivial stuff regarding the exact discussion and a bunch of insults from both parties, instigated by a frequent editor who is supposed to set an example, so I thought I'd spare you all that.